Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the content scope ('every question, option and verdict') but does not explain how the data is returned, whether it is read-only, how large the response may be, or any other behavioral characteristics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single focused sentence with no filler. It adds specificity beyond the title by enumerating what the tree contains, and it is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple no-parameter tool, the description is mostly adequate, but it leaves the agent to infer when to choose it over checker_answer/checker_start and gives no indication of the output structure or size. Because there is no output schema, a brief note on the returned data shape would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. With no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies a specific resource: the complete Right to Work check wizard decision tree, including questions, options, and verdicts. It is clearly distinct from focused sibling tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'retrieves'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'for reasoning end to end' weakly implies this tool is for whole-tree reasoning rather than single-step answers, and sibling names like checker_answer and checker_start suggest alternatives. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus those alternatives or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.